So The FBI Investigated "The Marathon Bomber" ...

Once the FBI learned the identities of the two brothers today, the FBI reviewed its records and determined that in early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.

In response to this 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government.

Some points and questions:

The Russians knew for years that the elder brother was radicalizing.

They told the FBI.

The FBI investigated him. It talked with the family and the person. (This confirms what the mother and the father said.)

Did the FBI try to "turn" or entrap him like it did with so many other nuts?

If not why not?

If they did turn him did he do their bidding or was he running as a double agent (compare David Headely)?

The man was in Russia January to July 2012.

Why wasn't he (or was he?) under observation at that time?

Did the brothers really do the marathon bombing or were they, like their parents assume, set up as culprids?

The early FBI involvement with the brothers leads to many interesting questions. We can think of a dozen possible conspiracies here. It is unlikely though that we will ever find out which of them is the real one.

@93 - I also am amazed by the mobility shown in exiting the boat, and the apparently grim prognosis now put forth - "may never be able to answer questions", something to that effect. A rapid and (in)convenient decline. I have doubts that he is even still alive. Stay tuned for an imminent turn for the worse.

Also interested in how someone can engage in a shootout with police when helicopters are hovering directly over the scene and the boat is enveloped in a tarp. Never mind being already gravely injured. Pack of lies.

Has the press contacted the homeowner to ascertain the veracity of the police version?

Has the press contacted the occupant of the allegedly carjacked SUV in order to ascertain the veracity of the police version? What was the gist of their brief conversation? Did they truly confess/brag about their involvement in the bombing? To me, this would seem like an interview a British tabloid would pay about a million pounds for. Is he under a gag order of some sort?

Many media outlets have blamed the shooting of the transit cop on the brothers, with the Boston police being slightly more circumspect, going as far as to say he was hit during a shootout with the suspects. If I were a gambler (I am), I would bet it was "friendly" fire. The cacophony of gunfire at various points of the chase evidences wild lack of discipline, bordering on panic, by the various police agencies involved.

Have the "competent authorities" (I love that term, seemingly peculiar to Arab press releases) presented any evidence that the brothers flung IEDs and grenades at the police? Surely if this was the case there would be photos - I mean every 12yo and above is armed with a cameraphone these days. Are we to simply take their word? Please show us the evidence of the explosions at least. No explosions? My word, that was lucky...

The one bit of this saga that I believe? That he will indeed never be in any position to answer questions.

@68 "What the usa tries is to invent a third category that basically has no rights. "

No, the category of "illegal combatant" isn't restricted to the USA, nor was it invented by the USA.

The French, for example, have a phrase that describes much the same thing: "francs-tireurs".

And those whacky Spaniards who decided that fighting the French in The Napoleonic Manner was never going to work decided to throw the Laws Of War out the window and fight as a "guerrilla". They were - by definition - fighting outside the Laws of War, and that made them "illegal enemy combatants".

And mercenaries are regarded as "illegal enemy combatants" unless they happen to be employed by Blackwater, in which case they're gorram patriots putting their special gifts to good use.

So the concept is as old as the formalization of the Laws of War themselves.

The difficulty in *this* case is with the very concept of these two brothers being "combatants" even though neither of them appear to belong to any organization or state that is in an armed conflict with the USA i.e. if they are "combatants" then they are "fighting" the USA as part of an "army of two"

So ask yourself this: how is it even *possible* for the USA to be "at war with two brothers"?

After all, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed way more people in the Oklahoma Bombing, but nobody would suggest that they were "illegal enemy combatants".......

I hope the more informed/cerebral posters here will forgive my naïveté, but is it possible that we are witnessing either a power play between two rival factions in the US government (one that favours arming the terrorists in Syria and increasing the level of intervention, and the other that would prefer to wind it down altogether), alternately, could this be an excuse to gracefully bow out of the whole quagmire, citing the terrorist credentials of those who are struggling to depose Assad? If it's the latter, and I concede this is wildly improbable, then I applaud the whole charade. However, if it's the former (also unlikely but not impossible), then I have concern for the well-being of the President, as he may be seen in some circles as having gone "rogue". The man is a study in contradictions of various stripes, no doubt constrained by many factors that we are not privy to, but seemingly intelligent, and perhaps even doing his utmost to steer the ship of state in a direction contrary to prevailing winds.

April 22, 2013 (LD) - Independent investigative journalist Dan Dicks of Press For Truth produced a video detailing his interview with the Boston bombing suspects' aunt where she identifies a naked, cuffed, clearly alive and well detainee seen in video aired by CNN, as her nephew and Boston bombing suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Tamerlan Tsarnaev would later be announced "dead," with injuries covering his body from "head to toe." The aunt is reportedly in fear for her life. . . . .
. . . . The FBI Has Now Lied Big, TWICE
The FBI originally feigned ignorance over the identity of the two Boston bombing suspects, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, as they appealed to an unwitting public to help them "identify" and "find" the suspects.

imo that is TT, exact same body type not to mention the other obvious similarities. Along with the pic we have of DT climbing out of the boat after being "shot in the neck" I think we can all agree that this looks to be a bit of agreed upon vigilante justice. "Organic" if you will. Really no different than the nearly weekly incidents of the same in poor urban areas of the US.

Next they'll tell us that TT also drove a Mercedes SUV but it was in the shop at the time of the 'carjacking'. That man knew a good car!

"" I think we can all agree that this looks to be a bit of agreed upon vigilante justice"

Oh noes - please count me out of that one - I have no intention whatsoever of going along with more presumptuous silliness.

I'm pretty sure that none of us can presume anything - this is the mistake you lot have made from day one - which is why all the silly speculation has essentially turned out to look so ridiculous now, a few days later.

For example, for all you know they just "disappeared" Tamburlaine, produced a similar looking corpse, and are keeping Tamburlaine on ice for a later op.

If I WERE going to presume anything, I might presume that supposedly dead men make very useful operatives later on. Ain't like they are going to complain to anyone, if they don't like the tasks set for them.

Making presumptions, given the amount of lying from the authorities is just a silly waste of time at this stage

"This will probably be ignored by the "Incompetence Theorists" who will as usual just plain explain it away as just more incompetence"

If the FBI can set up patsies to set off bombs, why would they go through the trouble of setting up two other guys while doing the incredibly risky move of setting off the bombs themselves (Craft guys in Craft hats doing the deed, apparently), when they could just set up two guys to set off the bombs??

The guy you link to has already had to walk back his claims. He is wrong on several points. It's not enough to say these two didn't do it. You have to have a credible theory about who did.

If you can explain that, You get a point. If you can explain it without being a fucking screaming cunt like you have been, you get two.

The series of pictures on Huffpost reveals nothing in particular; and the captions tell us what to think. It seems rather manipulative. The relationship the Tsarnaev brothers had with the FBI is the story, or their relationship with other compartments of the US government, or with a foreign government. The FBI is making up lots of improbable stories about them; for instance that the younger brother, Dzhokar, ran over his beloved elder brother with a car, a tale of surpassing improbability. The official lies and distortions are sticking out like a sore thumb. The government will have control of the testimony of the mute younger brother; and they will sequester him; and there is no chance (literally) of hearing a peep out of him.

Secondhand testimony is coming out of a Canadian freelance reporter, who says he tried to set up a face-to-face interview with Tamerlan's aunt who is afraid for her life, and is too terrified to open the door to anyone. The gist of a phone conversation he had with her, is that a man arrested by by police in Boston, and forced to strip naked and get in a police cruiser (as revealed in video) she claims with certainty to be her older nephew, Tamerlan. If this is true, it would make some US officials responsible for what would be his death in custody. And a rather tormented and grisly death to be sure, judging by what was reported and shown to be the condition of his corpse.

It is unknown who planted the explosives; and the presence of several contractors/paramilitary types wearing dark backpacks themselves, muddies the reality as it was perhaps intended to do, creating distraction and cover for those who were assigned the job of bringing in the bombs.

My point wasn't the term (in the linguistic sense) but the american invention of a war that can by any existing reasonable definition not be a war. You come close by talking about a war against two brothers (which, you are right, is of course absurd).

Actually there are different kinds of illegal enemy combattants, for instance, soldiers (or persons performing as soldiers) without proper uniform/insignia.

The basis, however, is always a context of war and a war necessarily involves two (or more) state parties.

Any and all cases of "war"-like situations or actions that are not a war, such as, for instance, an "army of rebels" fighting against their government are *not* war and actions performed fall under normal (usually) criminal law.

This btw also means that the whole american blabla of "war on terrorism" is pure bullshit and an arbitrary and legally meaningless invention of the usa bluntly ignoring international conventions and the souvereignty of other states.

Logic, 5 people died in a hand gun shootout Seattle this weekend, Tsarnaev is charged with WMD? I see the legal angle, death penalty, yet RoL using this is absurd, generally a military term, in that context and has not legal footing, it make the doable legal case ridiculous.

"If the FBI can set up patsies to set off bombs, why would they go through the trouble of setting up two other guys while doing the incredibly risky move of setting off the bombs themselves (Craft guys in Craft hats doing the deed, apparently), when they could just set up two guys to set off the bombs??"

See? There's your problem (well, one of your many) right there - your sentence is chock full of stupid ridiculous unnecessary presumption.

For example : "Craft guys in Craft hats doing the deed, apparently"

THAT is YOUR presumption, not mine.

"It's not enough to say these two didn't do it. You have to have a credible theory about who did."

stop being stupid. Of course it is enough to say that these two didn't do it, if that is what one wishes to say. No alternative theories are required at all.

But once again THAT is just something you have imagined I have said

Your problem is that you lot constantly make fools of yourselves by making unwarranted assumptions, and then end up looking foolish when events prove those assumptions to be complete bullshit.

The hilarious thing is that when someone tries to point out this very basic mistake of yours, you lot get all defensive and start ranting like loons.

So incompetent that he either created a 2nd Sun (but only for a brief moment in time) or he somehow completely altered the known Laws of Physics regarding the properties of Light? . . . (but only in that street in, that town, in that brief moment in time.)

"It is unknown who planted the explosives; and the presence of several contractors/paramilitary types wearing dark backpacks themselves, muddies the reality as it was perhaps intended to do, creating distraction and cover for those who were assigned the job of bringing in the bombs."

@ Sasha #104 - " The man is a study in contradictions of various stripes, no doubt constrained by many factors that we are not privy to, but seemingly intelligent, and perhaps even doing his utmost to steer the ship of state in a direction contrary to prevailing winds."

I agree that he is (it goes with the territory), but I can't speculate as to his remorse, or lack of. For all I know he may be ruing the breaking of a few eggs as he crafts his subversive ommelet. That's probably a 1,000-1 shot though. Only Michelle knows for sure!

@116 "The basis, however, is always a context of war and a war necessarily involves two (or more) state parties."

No, I don't think that is now regarded as correct.

All that is required is that there be:
a) an "armed conflict" which is
b) of an "international character"
and Ya' Got Ya' War On.

This had not previously been the case because treaties are legally documents signed between states, ergo, those documents have always assumed that states have a monopoly on "armed forces".

But there have been as least two recent wars where at least one of the "belligerents" came from states where the ruling regime didn't have a monopoly on power.

1) It is very reasonable to argue that an "armed attack" was made on the USA on 9/11, thereby provoking an "armed conflict" involving the USA. But it's very hard to claim that Bin Laden was commander of the armed forces of the Taliban.

2) Hezbollah and the IDF very definitely fought a war in 2006, but it is not at all clear that Hezbollah was a part of the armed forces of the state of Lebanon. After all, Lebanon denied that it was, Israel insisted it wasn't fighting "Lebanon", and..... Hezbollah made no claim that it was synonymous with the Lebanese Army.

Yet there was very definitely a war between the IDF and Hezbollah and, very clearly, that war was of an "international character".

@116 "Any and all cases of "war"-like situations or actions that are not a war, such as, for instance, an "army of rebels" fighting against their government are *not* war and actions performed fall under normal (usually) criminal law."

No, that's not necessarily true either.

What you are talking about there is an "armed conflict not of an international character", and in that case the high contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions (i.e. every state on Planet Earth) are bound by Article 3, which is reproduced in all four Conventions.

Such conflicts *are* regarded as "wars", but apart from Common Article 3 such wars are not governed by "international treaty law" (since those are agreements BETWEEN states) but are, instead, governed by "international customary law" (e.g. the Hague Regulations 1907, which are regarded as declaratory of "the customs of war").

So even "internal wars" require that all parties conform with the Hague Regs, and if you don't then you better not lose lest you end up at the ICC charged with war crimes.

Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss told Channel 2 Action News late Tuesday afternoon that a law enforcement agency may have had information in advance of the Boston bombings that wasn't properly shared.

"There now appears that may have been some evidence that was obtained by one of the law enforcement agencies that did not get shared in a way that it could have been. If that turns out to be the case, then we have to determine whether or not that would have made a difference," Chambliss said.

Though Chambliss would not get into specifics on the information or whether or not the bombing could have been prevented, he told Channel 2 Action News that they will find out if someone dropped the ball.

— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

Clear? You always depend on the ethics of the reporter. Otherwise apply Occam's razor,logic and experience. Occam's razor tells me everybody agrees secret services were involved. Experience tells me money equals power and young men tend to go where the power and the money is. Experience also tells me power shifts between generations. So whilst the uncle placed his bets on the US, young guys might place it somewhere else. Logic tells me the money is in the Gulf States and Khazakhstan. Logic also tells me the CIA would be interested in someone speaking Chechen and presumably some Turkic dialect having gone to school in Khazakhstan though briefly, plus Russian and English. Logic also tells me the "radical conversion" could be real or an attempt to blend in. Plus, the Russians presumably would not inform the FBI but their contacts and that would be CIA.

"134) Society of Journalists ethics code
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. — Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises."

Clear? You always depend on the ethics of the reporter

hahahaha - how quickly you forget that YOU are the guy that said, not more than a mere 5 or 6 hours ago:

"the most likely reason for all the unlikely news of course is that journalists on low wages just invent stuff for clicks. "

Comedy GOLD!!!

Wow - you literally COULD spin a 180-degree-U-turn on a dime, couldn't you?